Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />regulations. The court found that the intent of the original regula- <br />tion was to create an option for increased density while providing a <br />cap at one dwelling per five acres. The court voided the planned de- <br />velopment and sent the case back to the board to resolve other issues <br />that had been raised in the complaint. <br />The county appealed the court's decision to void the planned <br />development. <br /> <br />Decision: Judgment in favor of the county. <br /> <br />The appeals court first noted that, "without question, "the coun- <br />ty council was authorized to adopt the planned development or- <br />dinance. In addition, the county's decision to adopt the ordi- <br />nance creating the planned development was not only authorized, <br />it was supported by the part of the zoning regulations-which <br />the lower court found controlled the case-pertaining to planned <br />developments. <br />The regulations stated, in relevant part, that planned develop- <br />ment regulations were "intended to encourage innovative land plan- <br />ning and site design" by "[r]educing or eliminating the inflexibility <br />that sometimes result[ed] from strict application of zoning stan-') <br />dards that were designated primarily for development on individual <br />lots." Importantly, the regulations specifically provided for "varia- <br />tions from other ordinances and the regulations of other established <br />zoning districts concerning use, setbacks, lot area, density, bulk and <br />other requirements." <br />Furthermore, there was nothing that prohibited the county from <br />changing an ordinance that it had created. To the contrary, a sec- <br />tion of state law authorized municipalities to amend regulations, re- <br />strictions, and boundaries. Because a municipality had the legislative <br />power to amend its gener~l zoning ordinance and rezone small areas, <br />so long as its action was not arbitrary or unreasonable, the lower <br />court had erred by voiding the planned development. <br />The decision of the lower court was reversed. <br /> <br />See also: Bob Jones University, Inc. v. City of Greenville, 243 S.c. <br />351, 133 S.E.2d 843 (1963). <br /> <br />'~_~i~~~a~l~~i~Z.ikf[~~~i.Z1~}- <br /><:. ',,' ,..::o:''-~':":::~~:C,:;:: ::.,~..7-; <br />:i-::.~~lI:1:'";~~.8~6J <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />48 <br />